Slashdot Mirror


Hotel Tycoon Pushes Inflatable Space Stations

heptapod writes "Reclusive millionaire and motel tycoon Robert Bigelow has announced launching inflatable space stations through his personal aerospace firm. He's working off of NASA's TransHab designs and hopes to get launch one as early as November 2005! I'm sure after someone wins the X Prize they'll need someplace to stay the night. I wonder if each inflatable station module won't come with complimentary bibles."

14 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. Inflatable Church by maestro371 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who needs bibles when you could put one of these up there?

  2. X-Prize == sub-orbital by jeroen94704 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The x-prize is for a sub-orbital shot only. So they won't need a place to stay for a while yet.

    Of course, once the proposed yearly x-prize competitions get going (races for height, shortest turnaround etc), it may only be a few years before a private party is able to launch people into actual orbit. Then it will be cool if someone has an of-the-shelf inflatable habitat ready for use.

    --
    He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
  3. Re:I wonder how many stars this hotel is gonna be. by twr21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Space debris could be very catastrophic, but the chances of being hit by it are still miniscule (compared to say a launch failure or being killed on the way to the launch pad).

  4. Forget space stations by dysprosia · · Score: 5, Funny

    Truly, we need space inflatable jumping castles. Inflatable space stations? Bah!

  5. Re:I wonder how many stars this hotel is gonna be. by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because it's "inflatable" doesn't mean that it can't take a hit. You're not talking about a penny rubber ballon here. Even a rigid structure doesn't take hits well at the velocities encountered in space. And you'd actually have less chance of a breach with low impact collisions with a non-rigid structure. And the 2000 number awfully low, I think that's the activly tracked stuff.

    By not having to send up a rigid structure, you can save on weight and space, resulting in considerable savings, as you can send up a larger structure with less assembly in space required.

    Besides, by the time you inflate one of these to 1 atmosphere, the pressure difference between that and outside you'll have a very rigid structure. From looking at the articles, parts of the structure are rigid, providing points for preset 'utilities'. The expandable portions would be to provide space.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  6. Yeah, by King_of_Prussia · · Score: 5, Funny

    but the lack of gravity might put a slight damper on your plans there.

    --

    Making the moon less necessary since 1998.

  7. Re:I wonder how many stars this hotel is gonna be. by richie2000 · · Score: 5, Funny
    The expandable portions would be to provide space.

    Providing space? That must be like shipping ice to the north pole. ;-P

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  8. Re:Hrmm by CdBee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What good is a bike pump in a vacuum?

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  9. it could work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Never underestimate the power of gas filled bags. The Mars rovers even use them!

    Space, for the most part is an empty environment. Once in space, the aerodynamics of the craft don't matter much. We have very strong synthetic fibers, make huge kevlar-like inflated bubbles. Big enough to dissipate the energy, or deflect the object. Use honeycomb like layers, and it could probably be made from replaceable pieces, in the (I'm thinking, unlikely) event of a puncture.

    It would have to be assembled in space, and even large enough to encompase the craft to get to, and for use on the planet surface.

    If your going to go anywhere REALLY far away....wear a bubble!

  10. X prize winners don't go into orbit by Nick+Barnes · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm sure after someone wins the X Prize they'll need someplace to stay the night.

    After someone wins the X prize they will be back on the ground very soon, because the X prize is just for 100km altitude, not entering orbit. Entering orbit is very much harder (8 km/s delta-V instead of about 1 km/s). I dare say there will be follow-on competitions (such as the X Prize Cup) but it'll be quite a while before a privately-developed launcher makes it to orbit.

  11. In related news... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA has decided that astronaut food rations will now include a large supply of beans.

  12. First my girlfriend.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...now this! This whole inflatable tech is really taking off!

  13. Bigelow = genius by J05H · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Mr. Bigelow is brilliant. Maybe not as an aerospace engineer (he pays others for that), but as a man of vision and implimentation. Bigelow Aerospace has been working quietly for several years now, and it looks like they are finally ready to roll out some product. The Genesis pathfinder looks to be a very interesting testbed.

    I've been looking over the Bigelow patents on USPTO site. Check out "inflatable satelite", "...thermal management" and "spacecraft sleeping berth" for some of the things they have been working on. The most revolutionary item so far seems to be building an inflatable Transhab-type module, but putting the solid core to the edge of the inflated cylinder. The core has two sets of fold-out floor panels that form two floors, plus the core has a vac-safe section. If there is a puncture, the crew can seal it up and evacuate into another section of their station.

    Bigelow on USPTO.gov

    start saving those frequent-flyer miles,
    Josh

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  14. Re:Gideon's in Spaaaaaceeee... by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well if you are going to be a truly logical person you cannot discredit the theory that God exists because there is not logical proof that God doesn't exist as well. They are plenty of mathematical problems that cannot be proven but they seem to be true, because no one has found a way to disprove it. By saying I don't believe in God because there is no 100% proof that God exists. Is like saying I believe there has to be God 100% because of these small reasons.

    Yes, but all that applies to unicorns too - but I don't see people arguing for existance of unicorns. In fact, it applies to an infinite number of things, anything that we could conceive, but can't disprove.

    The poster didn't say he believed God didn't exist, but rather implied that he simply didn't believe in God.

    Not believing on the basis of a lack of evidence is perfectly reasonable, unless you're willing to believe in absolutely anything and everything that hasn't been disproved.

    But because I believe that I am in a real universe so must I assume it is real because I cannot disprove that I am not.

    But you can't disprove that you're a brain in a jar, so why don't you believe that too?